Swedish Company Trials Peer-to-Peer Cellphones

Dr_Barnowl writes "A company named TerraNet is going through a trial period for a p2p based mobile telephony system. Phones are used to route calls onto other phones, constructing mesh networks of 'up to 20km'. The BBC reports on the natural tendency of the big telecoms providers to want to squash this. I can see other problems though. The advantages in an environment with sparse cell coverage are obvious, but network effects mean that the number of connections in a heavily populated mesh grow exponentially. What happens to your battery life when your phone becomes a node? And while the company is optimistic that they have a viable technology model from IP licensing, the demand for devices supporting this is going to be proportional to the number of devices that it can connect you to."

Comments

Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[Crazy Taco]

This brings to mind some major privacy concerns too. Who besides me doesn't want my conversation getting routed through someone else's phone?

Re:Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[vertinox]

This brings to mind some major privacy concerns too. Who besides me doesn't want my conversation getting routed through someone else's phone?

Do you use IRC, Skype, or some type of chat software?

Maybe say... Internet forums?

Then your conversations are already being routed through someone else's hardware. You can always use encryption though in all cases.

Re:Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[Neil Watson]

The phone call is already going through the air for anyone one with the will and know-how to intercept.

Re:Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[Da Fokka]

Now that your head has been forcibly removed from your ass, please try to contribute something relevant to the discussion.

You started with a reasonable point, so why this remark? Just because the internet allows you to say things you would never say face to face, doesn't mean it's right to do so.

Re:Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[Pollardito]

You wouldn't use a single key for this. You'd use public/private keys. It doesn't matter if you're in the middle using public/private keys. your link contains this under Weaknesses:

Another potential security vulnerability in using asymmetric keys is the possibility of a man in the middle attack, in which communication of public keys is intercepted by a third party and modified to provide different public keys instead. Encrypted messages and responses must also be intercepted, decrypted and re-encrypted by the attacker using the correct public keys for different communication segments in all instances to avoid suspicion. This attack may seem to be difficult to implement in practice, but it's not impossible when using insecure media (e.g. public networks such as the Internet or wireless communications). A malicious staff member at Alice or Bob's ISP might find it outright easy.

it then goes on to describe solving this using certificate authorities like SSL does, but mentions weaknesses in that methodology too. anyhow, you can do send data securely with public/private keys, but saying that man-in-the-middle doesn't matter with asymmetric cryptography is oversimplifying things

countdown to filesharing

[rucs_hack]

I'd give it a year after this implemented and people will be routinely sharing music over this system.

Then there will be uproar from the music police, and they will insist on such draconian anti piracy measures that the technology will become all but unusable.

Or am I being pessimistic.

Re:Serious privacy issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Encryption.

Re:Do you hold nuclear security codes?

[apparently]

What on earth makes you think other people would want to listen to your phone conversations?

Gee, I dunno, most people's internet traffic is pretty fucking boring, but it doesn't stop the script kiddies from firing up their favorite wireless sniffer and eavesdropping. Why ever would I be concerned about someone eavesdropping on a phone call? Is that seriously the most sound "counterargument" you could come up with?

Re:Do you hold nuclear security codes?

[apparently]

Why would I care? Because my private matters, whether it be a credit card number, the status of an illness, or the fact that my house will be vacant while I'm on vacation, are none of anyone's business?
What about when I receive a call? How do I know if the conversation is going to turn from mundane to private?

Longer battery life is the bonus

[kanweg]

Because phones are much closer to each other than telecom towers, and the energy to transmit goes up quadratically with the distance, I think there is no issue of the batteries dying in a blink. However, when you're on the road (driving), you may not be in touch with enough other phones, and the connection may suck.

Bert

Re:Wow, I can see why you posted AC...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think a "direct connection" is over IP? Do you have visions of a wire (or maybe a "tube") strung between the two computers?

Re:Do you hold nuclear security codes?

[Lesrahpem]

You can sniff cell phone calls using little more than a HAM radio. This technology doesn't make it any easier or harder. In fact, I don't think this way of routing calls has any security/privacy implications which aren't already an issue with normal cellphone call routing, with the exception that this method makes it harder to eavesdrop on a specific phone call, since the calls don't go through any central point.

Correction: p2p *portable* phone

[belg4mit]

Cause they ain't exactly cells anymore are they?